House bans amendments for Taunton casino compact

When the House votes on whether to approve the casino compact between the state and the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, it will take up the matter unaltered, despite the wishes of several SouthCoast legislators. The House on Tuesday voted 112-39 to ban amendments to the compact, which was crafted to govern th...

When the House votes on whether to approve the casino compact between the state and the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, it will take up the matter unaltered, despite the wishes of several SouthCoast legislators.

The House on Tuesday voted 112-39 to ban amendments to the compact, which was crafted to govern the operation of the Mashpee’s proposed tribal casino in Taunton. The House may vote on the compact today.

“I think one of the problems with the tribal compact is that it has no date for certain as to when tribe must get land into trust,” said state Rep. Keiko Orrall, R-Lakeville, who voted to allow amendments.

An order to allow amendments was put forth by Reps. Robert Koczera, D-New Bedford, and William Straus, D-Mattapoisett. Some legislators wanted to amend the compact to include a deadline by which the Mashpees need to have land taken into trust by the federal government. By lacking such a deadline, the compact could leave the southeastern Massachusetts casino market in limbo, some argued.

“One of the concerns was that there was not a timeframe on compact, but in essence, there is a timeframe, because Mass. Gaming Commission can decide...” said Rep. Shaunna O’Connell, R-Taunton, who voted against allowing amendments. “We specifically gave them that power and authority.”

According to federal law, a federally recognized American Indian tribe with sovereign land may open a tribal casino if it is located within a state that permits such a class of gambling. The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, which received official federal recognition in 2007, is seeking a casino on land in East Taunton and currently has an application pending with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to have the Secretary of the Interior hold the land in trust for sovereign tribal purposes.

In a 2009 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot take land into trust for a tribe that wasn’t under federal jurisdiction at the time of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. The Mashpees, however, have repeatedly said they are confident their application will be approved.

Under the state law, commercial competition for a tribal casino is frozen out of southeastern Massachusetts in order to give the tribe a chance to work out its land sovereignty issues. If the legislature doesn’t approve the compact by July 31, or if the state Gaming Commission decides the Mashpees don’t have a reasonable chance of getting land taken into trust, then the southeastern region will be open to competitive bidding for a commercial casino.

“I think it would be a mistake to allow the interests of 200 elected officials to try to change the compact, which is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations carefully negotiated by experts,” O’Connell said.

She said she was concerned that amending the compact could cause one of the parties to walk away from the deal.

Page 2 of 2 -
“The bottom line is there will be no amendments allowed to the compact, and there shouldn’t be,” O’Connell said. “I’m very concerned that if changes were allowed it would jeopardize things going forward.”

Aside from the uncertainty surrounding tribal land sovereignty issues, Orrall said she is also concerned that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s dispute with Middleboro has not yet been resolved. The tribe had previously signed an intergovernmental agreement with the town, but later walked away to pursue a casino elsewhere. Middleboro officials claim the tribe owes them money.

Another complaint Orrall has centers around the concerns of surrounding communities that would likely be impacted by a Taunton casino.

“My issue is that the surrounding communities have not been included in the process the entire way through,” she said. “As a representative for surrounding communities, it’s very concerning that they haven’t done studies prior to this agreement, so the mitigation needs are unknown. The Gaming Commission hasn’t determined what a ‘surrounding community’ is.”